On 06/16/2014 SVETLANA BYKOVA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BRAEMAR COUNTY CLUB. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA A. BEAUDET, RUSSELL STEVEN KUSSMAN and HUEY P. COTTON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Van Nuys Courthouse East
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
RUSSELL STEVEN KUSSMAN
HUEY P. COTTON
BRAEMAR COUNTY CLUB
DOES 1 TO 100
MGDESYAN LAW FIRM
PAPPAS LOUIS WILLIAM
RENICK STEVEN J. ESQ.
6/16/2014: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
10/29/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
12/15/2014: NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER; DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTIIORITIES
12/15/2014: NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1/13/2015: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, PREMISES LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1/15/2015: ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND VACATING ALL FUTURE DATES CALENDARED IN PERSONAL INJURY HUB COURT (INCLUDING THE HEARING CALENDARED FOR JANUARY 22, 2015).
1/15/2015: Minute Order
7/13/2016: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VALERIE BAZYLEVICH'S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,455; DECLARAT
2/10/2017: NOTICE OF APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) (APPELLATE)
2/16/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
3/15/2017: AMENDED APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
3/16/2017: NOTICE OF DEFAULT (UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEALS)
4/11/2017: NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
7/19/2017: NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (CIVIL)
Ex-Parte Application (FOR ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE FOR MSJ OR IN THE ALT CONT. TRIAL ) Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Compel (COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR RELEASE OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $835.00 AGAINST PLAINTIFF SVETLANA BYKOVA AND HER COUNSEL) Filed by Attorney for Deft/X-ComplainantRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Attorney-PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Cross-Complaint (TO BREAEMAR COUNTY CLUB'S X-COMPL. ) Filed by Attorney-Cross DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Cross-complaint (BRAEMAR COUNTRY CLUB VS. SVETLANA BYKOVA, ROES 1-25 ) Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Response (DEFENDANT BRAEMAR COUNRY CLUB'S RESPONSE TO PALINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney-PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Reply to Opposition (TO DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney-PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Incoming Case Transfer Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (RE TRANSFER TO VAN NUYS ) Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer Filed by Attorney for Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Summons-Issued Filed by Attorney-PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC548751 Hearing Date: June 25, 2020 Dept: W
bykova, et al. v. braemar country club
Motion to compel second NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL examination
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2020 Trial Date: None set.
Department: W Case No.: BC548751
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Braemar Country Club
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Svetlana Bykova and Valerie Bazylevich
Plaintiffs Svetlana Bykova and Valerie Bazylevich allege on June 16, 2012, Svetlana, Valerie, and a friend were patrons of Defendant Braemar Country Club, which was dangerously overcrowded. After Valerie, Svetlana’s daughter, took off her floating armbands, she walked towards a lounge chair. However, Valerie fell into the pool after she was pushed by another patron and lost consciousness. Plaintiffs allege Defendant was negligent in properly operating the premises by failing to implement proper safety measures and security barricades.
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for 1) General Negligence; 2) Premises Liability; and 3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Defendant now moves for an order to compel Plaintiff Bazylevich to submit to a second neuropsychological examination.
Defendant Braemar Country Club’s Motion to Compel Second Neuropsychological Evaluation (Mental Examination) of Plaintiff Valerie Bazylevich is GRANTED.
Defendant Braemar Country Club moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Valerie Bazylevich to submit to a second neuropsychological examination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section §2032.310. Defendant alleges the second examination is appropriate since almost four years have passed since Dr. Goldberg evaluated Bazylevich.
The court notes Defendant made a good faith attempt at a meet and confer. (CCP § 2032.310(b).) Defense counsel declares he sent an electronic message to both plaintiff attorneys Haik Beloryan and George Mgdesyan; however, Defense counsel has not received a reply to the meet and confer as of the filing of the motion. (Leader Decl. ¶10, Exh. A.)
A party who seeks to perform a second physical examination or any mental examination must obtain leave of court. (CCP §2032.310(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310(b) provides that the motion “shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination.” Moreover, there must be a showing of “good cause” for a motion compelling an examination under section 2032.310 to be granted. (CCP § 2032.320(a).) There is no limit on the number of physical or mental exams that may be ordered on a showing of good cause. The good cause requirement checks any potential harassment of the plaintiff. (See Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.)
Defendant contends good cause exists for a second evaluation because Plaintiff Bazylevich claims that she sustained cognitive and emotional injuries as a result of the incident and almost eight years have passed since the subject incident happened and three and a half years have passed since Dr. Goldberg evaluated Plaintiff in 2016. Moreover, Defendant contends Dr. Goldberg believes it will be beneficial to evaluate the Plaintiff again as well as will allow for a more current assessment of Plaintiff.
The court finds Defendant has established good cause for conducting a second examination of Bazylevich due to the significant passage of time since the first examination and the ongoing issues relating to Plaintiff’s alleged anxiety and psychological issues, which may have changed in the last four years. As Defendant notes, they do not have an understanding of Plaintiff Bazylevich’s current psychological state and the mental state/cognition of Bazylevich has likely significantly changed during the important formative ages of six and her current age of ten. (See Examination Upon Court Order: Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 8I-3, 8:1546.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant does not need to conduct the same type of tests and studies to determine Plaintiff’s mental condition four years later. However, the court will not punish Defendant for conducting a first examination in anticipation of the original trial date, which was continued after Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff further argues the court should deny Defendant’s request due to the danger of “practice effects.” However, the court finds the four years since the first examination will not impact the data. Moreover, the second examination will include additional age-appropriate neuropsychological tests that will not be repetitive of the first examination.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the additional mental testing is burdensome and harassing. The court agrees that the eight hour testing will be burdensome on the ten year old Plaintiff. The court orders the testing to be done in six hours with a break after the first three hours for food and refreshment. The court notes Plaintiff does not object to the third parties or observers being precluded from attending the examination as the third party may distort influence on the clinical process. Review of case law indicates the presence of an attorney or a third party during a psychological exam is generally not allowed due to the need to establish rapport and to avoid interference with the psychological process. (See Edwards v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 905; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1391.) However, “trial courts retain the power to permit the presence of counsel or to take other prophylactic measures when needed.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 846.) As Plaintiff has not demonstrated the need to have a representative in the room, the court grants Defendant’s request.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320(d), “An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” The court will order Defendant to submit a new order reflecting this information.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Second Neuropsychological Examination of Plaintiff Valerie Bazylevich is granted.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases